Advertisement

Journal of Science Teacher Education

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 347–365 | Cite as

Teacher Talk Patterns in Science Lessons: Use in Teacher Education

  • Jouni Viiri
  • Heikki Saari
Article

This paper presents an innovative and useful methodology to analyze instructional talk. In teacher education, there is a lack of practical methods that the tutor teacher can use to discuss and reflect on student teachers' lessons. The student teacher cannot remember what actually happened during the lesson, and the feedback and discussions are based on memory and are, therefore, unstructured. The purpose of this explorative and descriptive case study was to characterize the teacher talk used in the process of a teacher's guidance of secondary school students' acquisition of knowledge about physics. First, a classification method for classroom talk was developed. Then, using this method, the pattern of teacher talk and the dependence of the patterns on teacher expertise are described.

Keywords

Student Teacher Teacher Talk Classroom Talk Talk Structure Teacher Presentation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Casa, T. M., & DeFranco, T. C. (2002). Examining the nature and role of discourse in the teaching of mathematics: A case study of two preservice teachers. Retrieved January 14, 2004, from http://www.education.duq.edu/institutes/ PDF/papers2002/Casa_DeFranco.pdfGoogle Scholar
  2. Cazden, C. B. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 432–463). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Cazden, C. B., & Beck, S. W. (2003). Classroom discourse. In A. C. Graesser, M. A. Gernsbacher, & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 165–197). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Crespo, S. (2002). Praising and correcting: Prospective teachers investigate their teacherly talk. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 739–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge. The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  6. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 379–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2000). The concept of learning demand as a tool for designing teaching sequences. Paper presented at the international symposium on Designing and validating teaching-learning sequences in a research perspective, Paris.Google Scholar
  8. Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2002). Design and evaluating science teaching sequences: An approach drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning. Studies in Science Education, 38, 115–142.Google Scholar
  9. Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2003). Individual and sociocultural views of learning in science education. Science & Education, 12, 91–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  11. Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk among teachers and learners. Clevendon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  12. Mortimer, E. F., & Machado, A. H. (2000). Anomalies and conflicts in classroom discourse. Science Education, 84, 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in science classrooms. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What's the use of “triadic dialogue”? An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21, 376–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nathan, M. J., & Knuth, E. J. (2003). A study of whole classroom mathematical discourse and teacher change. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 175–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Penick, J. E., & Bonnsetter, R. J. (1993). Classroom climate and instruction: New goals demand new approaches. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2, 389–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ryder, J., Hind, A., & Leach, J. (2003). Enacting lesson resources for teaching about the nature of theoretical models in high school science classrooms. Philadelphia: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.Google Scholar
  18. Scott, P. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32, 45–80.Google Scholar
  19. Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Stables A. (2003). Learning, identity, and classroom dialogue. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 4(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  21. Tabak, I., & Baumgartner, E. (2004). The teacher as partner: Exploring participant structures, symmetry, and identity work in scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 393–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J., & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 55–64). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  23. Viiri, J., & Saari, H. (2004). Teacher talk in science education. In A. Laine, J. Lavonen, & V. Meisalo (Eds.), Current research on mathematics and science education 2004 (pp. 448–466). Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
  24. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry. Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Wilson, J. M. (1999). Using words about thinking: Content analyses of chemistry teachers' classroom talk. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 1067–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.Department of physics and mathematicsUniversity of JoensuuJoensuuFinland

Personalised recommendations